The philosophical point that Mr. Sullivan refuses to address is that we Conservatives do not view the institution of marriage as merely another government sponsored entitlement program. If I am heterosexual and I share a NYC apartment with another man might it not behoove me to enter into a civil union with this man? Is sodomy a prerequisite for same-sex marriage?
1 posted on
10/08/2003 6:26:08 AM PDT by
presidio9
To: All
GOD BLESS OUR MILITARY THANK A VET! MAKE A DONATION TODAY
|
|
Keep Our Republic Free
Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
|
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER and say THANKS to Jim Robinson! IT'S IN THE BREAKING NEWS SIDEBAR Thanks |
2 posted on
10/08/2003 6:27:34 AM PDT by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: presidio9
Are you a subscriber currently?
3 posted on
10/08/2003 6:30:28 AM PDT by
Texas_Dawg
(GrayDavis/McClintock for 2004 Democratic Presidential ticket.)
To: presidio9
"A poll this week for USA Today found that 67% of the 18-29 age group believe that gay marriage would benefit society."67% of the 18-29 age group couldn't find their home state on a highway map!
Is THAT the best argument this bozo can come up with?
4 posted on
10/08/2003 6:42:57 AM PDT by
Redbob
To: presidio9
Is sodomy a prerequisite for same-sex marriage?Yes.
6 posted on
10/08/2003 7:03:30 AM PDT by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: presidio9
Andrew Sullivan has a point, but misses the larger point.
The government has no business promoting marriage for some and restricting it for others. Marriage between individuals is simply none of the government's business.
Where possible, government should be neutral on this issue of marriage. There should be no tax implications, for instance. Where neutrality is not socially beneficial, such as for the assignment of child custody, shared property, power-of-attorney, and the like, there should be a standard partnership regulation that is open to any two people who want it. This partnership would confer a series of rights and responsibilities on the people who enter into it, but it would not be a marriage.
Marriage would then be a matter for the individuals to decide. Many people would choose to get married in a church, as always. And churches would be free to restrict or permit access to their rites however they wish. The "rites" would not be a "right", since government would not be involved. Some people might choose to be "married" by their automobile mechanic on the beach, but people are going to do all sorts of wacky things, and there is no way the government is going to stop them.
It could be argued that by going to this type of arrangement, government would be abandoning any role in the promotion of marriage. But I would counter that the destructive power of government is far in excess of any capability for positive promotion. Government will not be able to avoid an ever expanding definition of marriage and will thus destroy the very institution it intends to promote.
The only way to save the institution of marriage is to separate it as much as possible from the government. This strikes me as being the proper conservative position. If this allows some homosexuals to gain the benefits of domestic partnership, I fail to see the harm in that.
7 posted on
10/08/2003 7:07:59 AM PDT by
gridlock
(Remember: PC Kills!)
To: presidio9
Yes, but what does this have to do with cancelling the subscription?
12 posted on
10/08/2003 7:32:21 AM PDT by
TopQuark
To: presidio9
"Can you think of any other legal, noncriminal minority in society toward which social conservatives have nothing but a negative social policy?"Here we go again -- if it's legal it should be socially accepted.
Which is why people like Andrew Sullivan (a self-proclaimed conservative who acts like a cultural libertarian) want the additional legalization of other immoral activities like drugs, prostitution, gambling, pornography, etc.
Once legal, he and others can then ask the same question.
There are many legal, noncriminal minorities in society toward which social conservatives have a "negative social policy". Welfare recipients, alcoholics, smokers ... basically directed at those engaged in non-desirous, socially destructive behavoir.
Now, change that to "negative social reaction" and you can include things like single mothers, gluttons, cheating spouses, heterosexuals who go to straight bath houses to have sex with 8-10 strangers per month, etc.
You know you're having a "conservative negative social reaction" if someone calls you "judgmental" or "intolerant".
To: scripter; EdReform
ping
16 posted on
10/08/2003 8:09:22 AM PDT by
xzins
To: presidio9
if they are no longer criminals
Sullivan refuses to address the difference between judicial activism and the legislature debating these points in a free society.
His "non-criminal" status was forced upon everyone by judicial fiat. That is, no one believes it.
Secondly, despite the "legal" status, gays are still "moral criminals" according to the moral codes of the vast number of americans. Everyone knows there is no such thing as a monogamous gay relationship. There is only promiscuity and that from study after study.
Finally, despite the "legal" status, gays are still "medical criminals," according to the health statistics of the CDC and everyone who begins to deal with the totally destructive medical consequences of homosexual behavior.
All that said, anyone can be made clean and be healed by the Son. Love the sinner, hate the sin. This also applies to adultery, alcohol, etc.
18 posted on
10/08/2003 8:16:37 AM PDT by
xzins
To: presidio9
we conservatives do not view the institution of marriage as merely another government sponsored entitlement program Fine. Separate marriage and state -- problem solved.
19 posted on
10/08/2003 8:17:42 AM PDT by
steve-b
To: presidio9
And his argument that this country is evenly split has been refuted many times over.
In addition, you can't take the poll that supports the Ten Commandments in public buildings by 70% and try to tease out support for homo marriage at the same time.
It doesn't wash.
To: presidio9
the Journal's editorial page is perhaps the greates in the world ......
Shaped and molded and honed as such in my lifetime by Bob Bartley and now has Paul Gigot at the tiller
AL Hunt has a opinion weekly piece which is regularly far wackyer and more infurioating than anything written here by Andrew Sullivan ...... who unlike Hunt is a bright man
The Journal has oaways offered a forum to positions oposite to that of its editorials
That's what this OPINION piece is by Sullivan
This is not the opinion of the WSJ. -- it's an OP-ED
the Journal was fair and balanced long before it became fashonable
To Paraphrase Bob Bartley: ' It's the only Editorial page in the world which actually sells papers'
He's quite correct
Just read those two pages each day and you will be a better person .... IMHO
.
34 posted on
10/08/2003 9:07:39 AM PDT by
Elle Bee
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson